posted at 12:42 pm on October 2, 2007 by Bryan

Rush just played this audio clip on his show. It’s a clip from back in August, of Sen. Hillary Clinton addressing the YearlyKooks, I mean Kos, convention. In it, she brags about starting and supporting Media Matters for America.

Doesn’t that make them an adjuct part of her campaign for the presidency? What does McCain-Feingold have to say about this arrangement? And has Norman Hsu’s Ponzi scheme money funded any part of Media Matters? These are the questions that the MSM that regurgitates Media Matters press release attacks as if they’re actual news will not ask and doesn’t want answered.

“…putting together a network in the blogosphere and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start and support like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…”

Hm. How many “progressive” blogs are part of this network? What roles do they play? How does this network work?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Media Matters has repeatedly denied any connection to Clinton or her campaign. Either they or Clinton is lying.

Does it have to be an either/or proposition? You might be right, but I just can’t wrap my head around the notion that only one of them is lying.

The dodge (which will be accepted by the MSM at face value) will be that Hillary only offered moral support to Media Matters, and any tangible connections that might spring up were merely mistakes for which she’s not responsible.

Here’s a list that will make you gag. Note Kelly Craighead of Media Matters. Also interesting is Michael Vachon. Wonder if he, as a Soros associate, had anything to do with bringing Ahmadinejad to Columbia?

I guess the FBI asked him to come in and took down all the information regarding among other things, the video that was suppressed in Eastern District of New York that has Hillary on record as acknowledging full knowledge and coordination of the fund raiser.

The full context of her comments are illuminating, as Mrs. Bill describes the motivation to create a functional progressive conspiracy to overcome the GOP “advantage” inherent to the vast right wing conspiracy.

You can always bank on the Clintons DOING that which they accuse others of.

With the recent release in April, 2007 by the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY of a smoking gun video of an illegal fundraising phone call from Hillary Clinton to Peter Paul in July, 2000 (a tape that was withheld from the DOJ, the FEC and the Rosen Grand Jury investigations into Hillary’s largest fund raising event) , Peter Paul’s attorneys are preparing a request to the new Attorney General to open a new investigation of the role Hillary, and the US Attorney she supervises as Senator from NY,played in obstructing all investigations that improperly exonerated Hillary Clinton for lack of any evidence linking her personally to the matter.

be the opening we’d love to see, by way of sworn testimony >(interrogatories & depositions- in which questions are not so limited in scope) into the tangled web of Soros’ financial/political influence?

First off, I regret listening to the full array of Hillary Clinton’s nonsense in that video in my effort to hear her many contradictions if not outright lies.

For starters (as to lies), she deploys the ever-handy Liberal method of lying in misstating and/or mischaracterizing the actions of those who point out her lies (and do so effectively): in regards Bill O’Reilly, she declares this lie, that “Bill O’Reilly tried to discourage people from coming to Chicago” and then she waxes for crowd appeal in declaring Chicago to be “a great city” and the sports stuff related.

It’s not Chicago, the city of Chicago, that was or is “discouraged” by ANYone in reference to anything Hillary related (though her ego in this regard is astounding…apparently in Hillary Clinton’s mind, Chicago and her political greed and Democrats are all interchangeable things, to discourage support for Hillary Clinton, Liberals and the Liberal blogosphere in Hillary’s mind is to be ‘against Chicago’ — what claptrap, what foolery, what deception she makes while wearing that foolish grin of hers).

These ongoing deceptions in speech are the main reason that people who are wise to and about others as to misleadments, lies and the dangers inherent in both are the reason why BOTH the Clintons are so continuously non supportable by most Conservatives. And why I as a Conservative question the capacity of many Liberals who fall for their deceptions, who seem unable to discern what these two Grifters are about, or, if they do discern what they’re about, that they’re supporting them (and that is to then participate in the Grift involved — and in this case, it’s the White House).

Liberals read comments such as these of mine and just think it’s some sort of attitudinal rant or the like from a Conservative. And they then persist in supporting people like the Clintons in their various escapades in some sort of rebound or spite or the like.

I just wish, to the contrary, that people would take a step back from Hillary Clinton and closely, very closely, examine who is behind the hype, who it is of character (or not) behind the presumption of popularity (it’s Bill Clinton’s popoularity, let’s face it, whether he’s on the stage in person with Hillary or not, Hillary is where she is because of Bill’s name, not due to her own abilities, but largely due to Bill Clinton’s name in history and “circles”).

I wish that more Liberals could take a step back and approach this person (Hillary) with criticism as to what she.actually.says or does.not.say and how and about what. To examine very closely what she’s selling (and she is selling) and why. Listen to the drifts of issues and names and topics she uses to confuse issues and to avoid providing any real infomation about herself and what she intends and has in mind, as to plans and politics.

Media Matters, Hillary Clinton…they are two of a kind, and they’re both lying as fast as they can, about nearly anything, everything, but their method of lying is subtle and persistent, just like is revealed about and by Hillary Clinton in this vidoe you’ve provided the link to…they CONFUSE and RECOMBINE statements to such an extent that you can start off asking them about, say, “ponies,” and you’ll end up reading (quickly) that, to this effect, “evil animals stomped on unsuspecting grasslands and devoured deserving daisies while they worked to establish pleasant aromas for all to enjoy. We condemn all spotted animals with manes.”

I would be curious to see how many foreign countries including Korea, Iran, China and others that have contributed to her campaign. Where is the proof of returning the Hzu 100s of 1000s back? Without proof, it never happened. The Clintons think they are above the law and those around them operate under that scenario.

Soros owns countries and banks. An investigation would take awhile. Let’s start now. Maybe by 2020, we’ll have it figured out.

Connie on October 2, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Getting any one of his “astroturf” or fake grass roots organizations through which Soros can launder money into court would force them to open internal communications and lead to a fascinating paper trail. Too bad we don’t have the luxury of that kind of time (“2020″). For an eye opening look at the many groups funded by or affiliated with George Soros, I borrowed the link below from Texas Rainmaker It is for map engine that allows you to click on any of its groups/individuals and CONNECT THE DOTS from Soros & his Open Society Institute to Media Matters and the Clintons, etc. Of course it offers only a glimpse and is of no value legally, but the sheer volume and reach of his tentacles is both astonishing and frightening.

BTW HA/Bryan: I searched through previous HA threads to see if this link had already been given out and could not find it. Sorry if it is redundant.

“Doesn’t that make them an adjuct part of her campaign for the presidency?”

Yep.

If true it would end Media Matters 501(c)(3) status and provide David Brock with an opportunity to fulfill his greatest homosexual fantasy: Being gang raped in federal prison after conviction for PERJURY.

The Clinton’s and Gore claim to have invented everything. Therefore, they must be inventing the countcome of this election.

When they loose, they will blame ‘Rush’ as a phone talk show icon when they cannot even invent a ‘Talk Radio’ host or program that people want to listen to. Oh, I am sorry, they invented “NPR” which is their version of ‘Radio Free America’ in America. Anyone actually try one of their recipes?

I bet it would contain more e coli than all of California’s illegal immigrant fields where the left supports illegals to work. The same fields they would not want their kids to face the dangers of real character building work.